humanpreta wrote:Why so much pride? Can you imagine that you're actually wrong? One day, a longtime from now, you'll thank all of us from a buddhafield....

Who is the one to accuse others not entitle to talk about dzogchen? Only the one with the pride of tradition can say that no? If I say you can't talk about mahayana practices unless you join as member of my tradition, then surely I had pride of the tradition.

Jyoti

Jyoti's Pride Disorder: you have received many simple, clear critiques of your statements by numerous members--you have failed to recognize truth in any one of these criticisms. It's dangerous when someone believes everyone is wrong--this narcissism will get you no where. And, btw, I didn't imply you had to join any tradition. My final and only message is: WAKE UP from your blatant ignorance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sherlock wrote:This is not just about tradition, direct introduction to your natural state by someone who has already had some realisation is the starting point for Dzogchen. First Statement of Garab Dorje. By all means, talk all you want, but please don't call what you're doing Dzogchen. You can use Dzogchen methods how you see fit, maybe you can even gain some realisation like this, but it is not Dzogchen.

This is true to the norm of the tradition, but others not subscribe to such norm, they don't have to accept it, neither do they need to be under the control of such tradition by binding themselves with so called samaya. Most importantly they don't need to obtain teaching from such tradition that kept it at secrecy.

Sherlock wrote:This is not just about tradition, direct introduction to your natural state by someone who has already had some realisation is the starting point for Dzogchen. First Statement of Garab Dorje. By all means, talk all you want, but please don't call what you're doing Dzogchen. You can use Dzogchen methods how you see fit, maybe you can even gain some realisation like this, but it is not Dzogchen.

This is true to the norm of the tradition, but others not subscribe to such norm, they don't have to accept it, neither do they need to be under the control of such tradition by binding themselves with so called samaya. Most importantly they don't need to obtain teaching from such tradition that kept it at secrecy.

Jyoti

Samaya is actually for your benefit -- the most important samaya is to remain in rigpa or at least be aware for as long as possible.

Sherlock wrote:Samaya is actually for your benefit -- the most important samaya is to remain in rigpa or at least be aware for as long as possible.

Not when the samaya is composed of such norms of tradition. The samaya of rigpa is included within the four reliances of mahayana. The four reliances directly contradict the norms of tantra and dzogchen tradition.

Sherlock wrote:Samaya is actually for your benefit -- the most important samaya is to remain in rigpa or at least be aware for as long as possible.

The four reliance of mahayana is their samaya, and it directly contradict the norm of tantra and dzogchen tradition.

Fine, that is very good. All I am saying is that if you don't want to receive proper transmission then you are not really qualified to comment on dzogchen/tantra. If you want to even use the techniques, it's also up to you and maybe you can even get some results.

Sönam wrote:Jyoti, if you compare Dzogchen to Yogacara, you manifestely miss something ...Dzogchen is all but conceptual.

Sönam

This is common label impose onto all mahayana teaching by the nyingma. Yogacara is not conceptual. The dharma is not based on concepts.

Of course the dharma of Buddha Sakyamuni starts with concepts ... 4NT and so on. Otherwise we would'nt need it.We do not speak about nyingma but about dzogchen ... it is not precisely the same, and dzogchen do not impose anything on any teaching. And of course Yogacara is conceptual, it's about mind only.

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Sönam wrote:Jyoti, if you compare Dzogchen to Yogacara, you manifestely miss something ...Dzogchen is all but conceptual.

Sönam

This is common label impose onto all mahayana teaching by the nyingma. Yogacara is not conceptual. The dharma is not based on concepts.

Of course the dharma of Buddha Sakyamuni starts with concepts ... 4NT and so on. Otherwise we would'nt need it.We do not speak about nyingma but about dzogchen ... it is not precisely the same, and dzogchen do not impose anything on any teaching. And of course Yogacara is conceptual, it's about mind only.

Sönam

There are two divisions of scriptures in the mahayana, one is of definitive meaning, the other is of non-definitive meaning. The scriptures of definitive meaning is not based on conceptual construction, but on the body of dharma which is permanent and changeless. For example, nirvana, dhamadhutu, dharmakaya, etc. The means is based on the body, since the body is not of conceptual construction, it followed that the means that is based of such is also not of conceptual construction.

The term 'mind only' is not precise, the actual term is 'consciousness only', since the 8 consciousnesses exist in reality, it cannot be say to be make up of concepts.

Jyoti wrote:Begin with the actual means and body, the means is the 7 consciousnesses, the body is the alayavijnana. The fruit or the four visions is due to the maturation of the seeds of bodhi within alayavijnana. Visions involved the eye consciousness, therefore the practice involve integrating the vision. By integrating, the seeds are perfumed, being perfumed, progressed of the vision occurred. These covered the major elements of togal. The way of abiding is trekcho, trekcho is not different than the abiding of ch'an, yogacara and/or mahamudra.

Your description simply means you don't understand basics and have no idea how Thogel actually works. You clearly don't suspect what the true nature of visions are if you think this involves eye consciousness. WHich also means you don't understand what the natural state is. As everybody told you here, you should get a master, get a transmission from him and start practice. Knowledge and experience of Dzogchen do not depend on the two emptiness... You can keep on say "yes it is", it does not change the fact that conflating chan, yogacara and dzogchen means you don't understand their principles. Chan and yogacara work with mind, Dzogchen is based on Rigpa, the knowledge of the natural state. But it's useless to discuss things with you because your understanding is flawed from the start. One just has to look at the thread dealing dealing with the (wrong) notion of a single consciousness in which you demonstrated you don't even understand kun-gzhi.

mutsuk wrote: As everybody told you here, you should get a master, get a transmission from him and start practice.

Your own level of understanding of the dharma is enough reason for anyone to be cautious about taking such advice. Getting a transmission doesn't automatically entitled you with authority to speak of dzogchen, i.e. if one is to strictly adhere to your tradition's norm.

Knowledge and experience of Dzogchen do not depend on the two emptiness... You can keep on say "yes it is", it does not change the fact that conflating chan, yogacara and dzogchen means you don't understand their principles. Chan and yogacara work with mind, Dzogchen is based on Rigpa, the knowledge of the natural state. But it's useless to discuss things with you because your understanding is flawed from the start. One just has to look at the thread dealing dealing with the (wrong) notion of a single consciousness in which you demonstrated you don't even understand kun-gzhi.

You are entitled to your opinion based on what you believe in the familiarity of words, I don't use words you are familiar with, because it is not my aim to get you to agree. Rather by your disagreeing and attitude, I can see directly your level of understanding of the dharma as well as your self-culture.

mutsuk wrote: As everybody told you here, you should get a master, get a transmission from him and start practice.

Your own level of understanding of the dharma is enough reason for anyone to be cautious about taking such advice. Getting a transmission doesn't automatically entitled you with authority to speak of dzogchen, i.e. if one is to strictly adhere to your tradition's norm.

Knowledge and experience of Dzogchen do not depend on the two emptiness... You can keep on say "yes it is", it does not change the fact that conflating chan, yogacara and dzogchen means you don't understand their principles. Chan and yogacara work with mind, Dzogchen is based on Rigpa, the knowledge of the natural state. But it's useless to discuss things with you because your understanding is flawed from the start. One just has to look at the thread dealing dealing with the (wrong) notion of a single consciousness in which you demonstrated you don't even understand kun-gzhi.

You are entitled to your opinion based on what you believe in the familiarity of words, I don't use words you are familiar with, because it is not my aim to get you to agree. Rather by your disagreeing and attitude, I can see directly your level of understanding of the dharma as well as your self-culture.

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Jyoti wrote: Your own level of understanding of the dharma is enough reason for anyone to be cautious about taking such advice.

Contrary to what you think, it's for your own good and karma that such an advice is given to you. You have most obviously not udnerstood what Dzogchen is about, in terms of actual experience. You need a master to give you direct introduction so that you know where to start from: the actual knowledge of the natural state (Rigpa). If you don't want to take such an advice into account, I'm sincerely sorry for you.

Getting a transmission doesn't automatically entitled you with authority to speak of dzogchen, i.e. if one is to strictly adhere to your tradition's norm.

Sure it does not entitle you to anything but then you'd know what you are talking about, instead of conflating Chan, Dzogchen and Yogacara, which simply says a lot about your level of understanding.

You are entitled to your opinion based on what you believe in the familiarity of words, I don't use words you are familiar with, because it is not my aim to get you to agree.

Certainly, this is not your aim. But misunderstanding basic concepts, as you do in the thread "Beings and consciousnesses, one or many" simply demonstrate you don't understand the nature of kun-gzhi and I suspect you don't even distinguish it from kun-gzhi rnam-shes.

Rather by your disagreeing and attitude,

This is the play of the mirror which you apparently are not able to cope with.

I can see directly your level of understanding of the dharma as well as your self-culture.

Well your reflections about Dzogchen are based on chinese translations of the original texts. I know both and I can tell you the chinese translations are flawed with ideas and concepts which are not in the originals, which is why you think — and it's not surprising that you can't transcend any patriotic hegemonic attitude — things which are contrary to what Dzogchen teachings say. Starting with the inability to understand that the rigpawiki link is flawed and that you don't understand how the atomic body manifests. WHen you'll read the Theg-mchog-mdzod by Longchenpa, you'll probably think he is wrong too. I don't think it's been translated into chinese yet. His Tshig-don mdzod has been, in the 句義寶藏論, but you won't find as detailed infos on the differences between the rdul-lus and the 'ja'/'od-lus as in his Theg-mchod treasury. I don't know if you have the 句義寶藏論. Do you? If yes, have you read it?

If you were there to get info or share data that would be interested, but you just want to impose your non-educated opinions on a subject which evidently transcends your understanding. For me the discussion is done, it's a total waste of time. I'd rather read about females having reached the rainbow body. I'm still trying to locate that Bod-ljongs nang-bstan issue and will come back with the relevant info on Byang-chub rdo-rje's daughter.

mutsuk wrote:Certainly, this is not your aim. But misunderstanding basic concepts, as you do in the thread "Beings and consciousnesses, one or many" simply demonstrate you don't understand the nature of kun-gzhi and I suspect you don't even distinguish it from kun-gzhi rnam-shes.

Why you didn't point that out in that thread? Without pointing out, no body know what you are talking about, they are many points being discussed.

Well your reflections about Dzogchen are based on chinese translations of the original texts. I know both and I can tell you the chinese translations are flawed with ideas and concepts which are not in the originals, which is why you think — and it's not surprising that you can't transcend any patriotic hegemonic attitude — things which are contrary to what Dzogchen teachings say. Starting with the inability to understand that the rigpawiki link is flawed and that you don't understand how the atomic body manifests. WHen you'll read the Theg-mchog-mdzod by Longchenpa, you'll probably think he is wrong too. I don't think it's been translated into chinese yet. His Tshig-don mdzod has been, in the 句義寶藏論, but you won't find as detailed infos on the differences between the rdul-lus and the 'ja'/'od-lus as in his Theg-mchod treasury. I don't know if you have the 句義寶藏論. Do you? If yes, have you read it?

I have explained my point of view with reason, you have none but only from mere words of scriptures. But it is fine as these are phenomena that required direct personal experience which none of us possessed. So just put it down.

If you were there to get info or share data that would be interested, but you just want to impose your non-educated opinions on a subject which evidently transcends your understanding. For me the discussion is done, it's a total waste of time. I'd rather read about females having reached the rainbow body. I'm still trying to locate that Bod-ljongs nang-bstan issue and will come back with the relevant info on Byang-chub rdo-rje's daughter.

There is really not much in dzogchen there is to discuss, as there is not anything new to the more complex yogacara. Just be aware what the yogacara has covered, it is not necessary covered in dzogchen.

My teacher made me dance and sing songs. I felt uncomfortable. But then I realised that I had a lot of pride and was taking things too seriously. It was a great teaching and not a teaching I could have given myself. When you rely just on the intellect its possible to close up or to think too much that you will figure things out. Pride is a consequence and your ego manages things so that ego becomes even more in control.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Jyoti wrote: But it is fine as these are phenomena that required direct personal experience which none of us possessed. So just put it down.

It always estonished me how some peoples lacking something try to include others in their own lack using "us" instead of "I" ... it's an easy trick. If you do not possess something how could you have the ability to know if someone else possesses it or not? Ah Pride, when you catch us!

...There is really not much in dzogchen there is to discuss, as there is not anything new to the more complex yogacara. Just be aware what the yogacara has covered, it is not necessary covered in dzogchen.

Jyoti

How do you know that "there is not anything new to the more complex yogacara" in dzogchen? did you learn dzogchen? have you had a teacher of dzogchen? did you receive Direct Introduction and practice it?... or is it just that you read some translated books and "had an opinion"?

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Sönam wrote:It always estonished me how some peoples lacking something try to include others in their own lack using "us" instead of "I" ... it's an easy trick. If you do not possess something how could you have the ability to know if someone else possesses it or not? Ah Pride, when you catch us!

It is simple, if you experienced the phenomena, you will not be here. The same apply to anyone else.

How do you know that "there is not anything new to the more complex yogacara" in dzogchen? did you learn dzogchen? have you had a teacher of dzogchen? did you receive Direct Introduction and practice it?... or is it just that you read some translated books and "had an opinion"?

Sönam

As I have already demonstrated in the explanation of togal within the system of yogacara, if yogacara can penetrate the core of togal which is the highest teaching of dzogchen, there is not anything else that is not within the grasp of yogacara.

As for my knowledge of dzogchen, it is a none issue, if I need a qualification to talk dzogchen, then the readers is relying on such personal qualification, rather than the meaning of the words themselves, this is not the ideal situation I would like to expect. I'm relying in the power of the dharma to prove itself.

Jyoti

Last edited by Jyoti on Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sönam wrote:It always estonished me how some peoples lacking something try to include others in their own lack using "us" instead of "I" ... it's an easy trick. If you do not possess something how could you have the ability to know if someone else possesses it or not? Ah Pride, when you catch us!

It is simple, if you experienced the phenomena, you will not be here. The same apply to anyone else.

why not? ... another concept?

How do you know that "there is not anything new to the more complex yogacara" in dzogchen? did you learn dzogchen? have you had a teacher of dzogchen? did you receive Direct Introduction and practice it?... or is it just that you read some translated books and "had an opinion"?

Sönam

As I have already demonstrated in the explanation of togal within the system of yogacara, if yogacara can penetrate the core of togal which is assume to be the highest teaching of dzogchen, then there is not anything else that is not within the grasp of yogacara.

As for my own knowledge of dzogchen, it is a none issue, if I really need a qualification to talk dzogchen, then the readers is relying on such personal qualification, rather than the meaning of the words themselves, this is not the ideal situation I would like to expect. I'm fully confidence in the power of the dharma itself to prove itself.

Jyoti

What do you call "togal within the system of yogacara" ... there is no thögal in yogacara? and where did you pick up that "if yogacara can penetrate the core of togal"? Never heard that the yogacara system could "penetrate the core" of thögel?In my humble opinion you are lost in a conceptual idea about the philosophy you are in ...

Anyway, as already stated, there is no way out with that discussion ... be happy!

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Jyoti wrote: Why you didn't point that out in that thread? Without pointing out, no body know what you are talking about, they are many points being discussed.

Why? Because thinking that one shares the alayavijnana with others simply means you don't understand that notion. This was so ridiculous...

I have explained my point of view with reason,

No, you have shown you don't understand the teachings of Dzogchen, starting with the fact that you think the visions are the object of the eye consciousness. This simply disqualifies you from the start. It means you don't know what is the natural state, what is its rtsal, and what is the nature of the visions.

you have none but only from mere words of scriptures.

Well canonical scriptures in this case are more reliable than mere imagination about what Dzogchen is from "translations" which you seem to have difficulties to understand.

But it is fine as these are phenomena that required direct personal experience which none of us possessed. So just put it down.

As Sönam said, it's not because you have no actual experience of this that all others are like you. Actually I know of a french scholar/practitioner who has crossed steps in Thogel that you would not even suspect.So put down what ?

There is really not much in dzogchen there is to discuss,

Well clarifying your projections regarding the rdul-lus for instance would be a good opportunity to avoid misleading others with your misconceptions. That is of importance in my opinion.

as there is not anything new to the more complex yogacara. Just be aware what the yogacara has covered, it is not necessary covered in dzogchen.

You are totally deluded. Yogacara is a sutra-based teaching and Dzogchen is the 9th yana. You certainly cannot compare and if you think there is nothing else in Dzogchen, it simply means you need to read more and study more Dzogchen texts because there is way more than you'll ever find in the Yogacara tradition.

Would you mind sticking to the topic of females having reached the Rainbow Body? Do you have anything interesting to share on that subject?